338 Win Mag versus 300 Win Mag

[Roadkill2228]

Because the person asking the question wasn't interested in hearing about the .308 (not trying to be a smart a$*). They've already got a 270. Though the 270 is more light and fast and the .308 is slower and heavier, they both are considered "standard" calibers. They are very similar energetically speaking. They aren't after the most efficient or practical round because they already have an efficient and practical round. The person asking is looking to step up a notch from a standard caliber

[Mystro]

Your 270 is a great choice. It will do anything the 300 will. If you HAVE to go big, then the 338 is where I would start. The 338 makes a great big bear caliber. Any deer species will be taken care of with the 270.

[JD0x0]

.308" (7.62mm) 220 grain, SD .331
.338" (.338) 250 grain, SD .313
.366" (9.3mm) 286 grain, SD .305
.375" (.375) 300 grain, SD .305
.416" (.416) 400 grain, SD .330

.277'' (.270) 180 grain, SD .335

Don't underestimate the .270

[Chestnut Forge]

IMO the .338 is superior to the .300. I have both. .338 in a M70 and .300 in a M700. The .300 is a great round but for long range accuracy, the .338 has it beat hands down. Recoil is a bit stiffer with the .338, but worth the extra push. I have seen whitetail hit with both cartridges. The .300 blows a huge hole in them , while the .338 kinda throws them through the air. For big dangerous game, my choice would be the .338.

[Roadkill2228]

I agree that any deer species can be cleanly taken with the .270 but...common guys. Are you seriously trying to convince a fellow shooter, hunter, and enjoyer of firearms NOT to get the new gun?!?!?!? Most of us are trying to find an excuse to JUSTIFY making such a decision they have an excuse! I have a .270 and a .300 mag and I love both of them and don't regret a penny or a second I have spent enjoying both of these rifles. I have to politely but firmly refute that statement that keeps popping up "the .270 can do anything the .300 can". No it can't. If your waiting for perfect broadside shots every time then yes, maybe. But in the field you are not always graced with such a shot, and there are many potential scenarios I can think of in which I would refrain from pulling he trigger on my 270 and wouldn't think twice about if I was behind my .300. The benefits are even greater for a reloader; much factory .300 wm ammo is quite anemic and I don't know why (though I suspect it's because the .300 wm running at full potential make those short mags seem a bit less magical). Get the .300! I don't regret my choice and neither will you.

[dgludwig]

I agree that any deer species can be cleanly taken with the .270 but...common guys. Are you seriously trying to convince a fellow shooter, hunter, and enjoyer of firearms NOT to get the new gun?!?!?!? Most of us are trying to find an excuse to JUSTIFY making such a decision they have an excuse!

Finally! Some common sense to add to this discussion.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

160 grains is very long/heavy for .270.... so 180 gr .270? C'mon...I'm sure someone makes it but that doesn't mean the rifling will stabilize it or it will feed through the mag, or that anyone would even know where to order such a beast. And SD is a very large factor in penetration to be sure, but it's not the only one. Sheer bullet weight is a large factor too, as well as bullet construction relative to speed.

[ligonierbill]

I don't understand the dislike of belted cases. OK, the belt was meant to act as a rim in the old .375 H&H, and now all the rounds based on that classic retain the belt. But we set our dies to headspace on the shoulder. So it serves no purpose, but neither does it hurt anything (unless your headspace is excessive). When I bought a .338 WM, I looked real hard at the .338-06, .35 Whelen, and 9.3x62. These are great rounds; I think I still want that big Mauser. But here's what it came to. I can back the Win Mag off to .338-06 levels, so why give up the extra juice? The Whelen sends those nice heavy bullets, but the same weight .357 has a lower BC than the .338, and again, I get a little (not much) more juice. The 9.3x62, boy I still like that one. Fewer rifles available here in the US, though. Ammo more of a problem unless you roll your own, which of course you should. I like my .338 WM - lots of thump and lots of range (more than I can use). But I do need to share this. When I lived out west (SE Idaho), more folks carried .300 Win Mags than just about anything. Does that make it the best choice? For you? That I can't say. Man, now I gotta Google CZ and see if they still sell a 9.3x62 here. See what you started!

[south_ridge]

In my opinion, the .300 WM is 'just' a fast .30. It has it's place, basically doing all of the .30-06 stuff a bit farther out. I don't own one, but that is probably because I have a nice .30-06 and don't see the need.

On the other hand. the .338WM is in a different class. Better for bigger, heavier stuff at about the same distances if you can shoot well. I have one of these.

If I had a .270 and was looking for something bigger, I would buy a .338.

SR

[dgludwig]

Same here, south ridge. I've got a couple of 30-06s, a .308 and a .358 Winchester. My .338 Magnum filled the gaping "gap" in my inventory. I'm always looking diligently for a gap or two...

[Jack O'Conner]

My boss takes down a bear in Maine every year with Ross Lake Camps outfitters. Two were over 300 lbs. He hunts with a Marlin lever action carbine in 35 Remington and reports quick kills without exception. I feel that the middle bores have been overlooked and ignored by majority of North American hunters.

If I needed a really hard hitting rifle, I'd buy a 35 Whelen and keep my shots within 250 yards or so. 338 magnum is too tough on the shoulder to suit me.

Jack

[south_ridge]

dgludwig - I hear you. I've even been known to make up a few gaps that don't really exist...

I bought my .338 because I thought I was going on a Vancouver Island bear hunt (that vaporized), and I also needed an excuse to buy one of the FN-produced Model 70s.

If we only bought the guns we needed, we could all get by with about 4. But I have a lot more than 4...

[xnaerughiazk]

What South Ridge said about getting a 338WM. 300WM is just a faster 300, but a 338 is a step up in caliber vs powder burned.

I bought a 338 for moose in Maine, and while there is no reason that you need a 338 bullet for moose in Maine, it has been there, and I don't know if the moose know the difference, but they aren't complaining.

[Wildernesshunter]

resurrecting this thread....cause it is just a good one.....

I read that a couple of writers like the 338-06.

What about sticking with an ole '06, reloading with the 220 grain pills?????

Sure, not good out to 500 yards, but the old aught six with 220's seems like a decent option.

[hagar]

I'd take a 338 any day before any 300 magnum. I'd even take the 270!

I shot a 900 pound Elk in AZ with a 338 and 250 grain Sierra bullet. It was quartering away and the bullet went in at the left hind quarter and exited the right shoulder area, penetrated 4 feet of Elk and left a nice inch wound channel without ruining any meat.

[kraigwy]

There is nothing in North American that cant be successfully be taken with the 30-06. Noting in the lower 48 that cant be successfully taken with the 270, including Elk.

(however I like the 150 gr 270 for elk).

The difference is the recoil you get from the 338 or the 300 WM. I don't care how big an tuff you are, recoil is going to get to you.

I use to shoot a 300 WM Tgt Rifle for 1000 yard matches when I shot for the Guard. I learned I could go better with the 308 then I could the 300 simply because of the fatigue factor.

I one simply wants another rifle, by all means get one. However any more I wont shoot the heavy guns without a Muzzle Brake. I shoot for fun, not to get beat up.

Marksmanship is more important then any caliber. People simply shoot better with the smaller calibers.

I live with the Alaska Natives on the Bering Sea, and went out hunting with them. The 223 was quite popular for caribou, seals and even walruses.

[ligonierbill]

OK, I'll play. I'm a .338 guy myself, but I'll share my minor experience with 220s in the 30-06. I have an old Remington-made Model of 1917 that was sporterized long ago and sports an aftermarket aperture sight. Especially with me shooting, it's only good to about 200. So I loaded some Sierra ProHunter 220 RN over IMR-4350 to see how she'd do. Pretty good, in fact: >2,400 and good groups.

I haven't shot anything but paper with it, but recall that Elmer Keith declared the '06 "no elk rifle" after he shot one running away with a 220. He was disappointed that it failed to penetrate the entire length of the elk!

[RC20]

Either get a 30-06 or 375.

300 WM just kicks a hell of a lot harder and uses far more powder and eats up barrels.

You need to get to 375 before you see the difference (and its a softer shove)

If a 30-06 is got the capability to hunt what you want, then go with it.

If not, the 375.

[RC20]

resurrecting this thread....cause it is just a good one.....

I read that a couple of writers like the 338-06.

What about sticking with an ole '06, reloading with the 220 grain pills?????

Sure, not good out to 500 yards, but the old aught six with 220's seems like a decent option.

There are ELD lines of hunting bullets in the 220 gr range now.

225 if you want to try a match and there is some contenders that use them far out with reported good results.

[dgludwig]

I'll share my minor experience with 220s in the 30-06.

I'll share mine too but it involves hunting instead of paper. Opening day for deer hunting in Michigan (November the fifteenth) in 1966, I was hunting in a cedar swamp area with an early Remington Model 760 rifle having a Williams receiver sight and, for whatever reason, had it loaded with 220 grain Winchester Silvertips.
At the crack of dawn, an eight point buck exploded from a creek bed I was crossing and I was able to put two quick shots into the lung/heart area of the deer. It fell right away but got to its feet and started running away. Two more shots downed the deer but it was still very much alive as I scrambled to reload the detachable magazine and manage to administer the coup de grace.
Examination of the wound areas revealed that those heavily constructed 220 grain bullets just whistled through the deer, showing no evidence of expansion; the failure to expand probably compounded by the relatively close range of the shots.
Though this was just one isolated event for me, I concluded that 220 grain Silvertips are probably best suited for times when penetration is more important than expansion (i.e., when hunting bear instead of whitetails). All of my subsequent deer hunting when using either the .30-06 or the .308 employed 165 or 180 grain bullets, usually Remington "Core-Lokts".

[Wyosmith]

Well I have owned and shot both and both have a lot of merit.
But if I were to step up from the 270 I'd go with the 9.3X62 or the 375H&H.

[RC20]

And the comment by Dgfludiwg shows that its bullet selection that is the first criteria.

You don't hunt deer with solids, but you do Cape Town Buff (and Elephants now if needed for crop or too large for an area heard control)

Caliber is important, but you have to start with what you are going to hunt, what the likely range is and pick the bullet best suited for that.

[shootsasharps]

I have a 338 win mag. Wicked accurate and throws a heavy punch down range but absolutely brutal kick at the bench. Going to brake it. 300 win mag is probably the best overall anything gun. Way more than needed for whitetails but I like my animals dead not suffering. Plenty for Elk and just plain awesome ballistics for showing off at the shooting range.

[Stats Shooter]

Asking a "what is better" question on the internet with respect to two different tried and true cartridges will yield dozens of impassioned posts, some advocating one, some advocating the other....and some who think both options are wrong and you should get some other cartridge you didn't even mention.

So i will try and stay within the bounds of the OP.
I shoot F-CLASS open 1k yards and hunt with a .300wm. I have 3 of them. It is a superior all around Rifle to the .338 wm because you can get similar knockdown Power with a higher BC in 200 gr bullets while also shooting laser flat with 150 gr bullets... something the .338 wm cannot do as easily and not with as high of BC bullets in the lower weights.

In my model 70 Super Grade .300 wm I get about 2975-3000 fps with a 200 gr nosler Accubond. If your rifle is throated for it and magazine fits longer bullets, I push a 225 gr hornady ELD-m 2950 with a 28" barrel, with a BC of .777 G1 or .394 G7. That is actually faster than a SAAMI .338 wm with the same bullet weight .

But all that said, for big game hunting there is nothing wrong with a .338 wm either. That is what my dad uses for elk while I use a .300wm and my brother uses a .375 HH.

I too already have a .270, and .308's (plural). But the .300 wm is superior to both.

Now with all that said, and me having made my case, if you go .338 wm it wouldn't be bad at all since you already have a medium game Rifle and a brown Bear/bull elk/bull moose thumping .338 wm would cover all game in North America.

Fwiw, I don't know why people complain about the belt, if you don't hand load, the belt doesn't matter and if you do, you headspace off the shoulder after the first firing and after the 4th or 5th you just use the Larry wills die and it's back to SAAMI....and in a dedicated hunting Rifle I doubt most folks will ever shoot enough to need it.

[dgludwig]

....and in a dedicated hunting Rifle I doubt most folks will ever shoot enough to need it.

That's a point well worth making. I have more than a couple of rifles I'll probably never reload for because, after sighting them in, along with periodic checks to verify poi vs poa, a couple or three boxes of factory ammunition will likely last me for the rest of my life (and at 74 years of age, all the more likely...).